What scares the f*ck out of you?
Ted Cruz, White House, maybe I over-react...
No, no, no over-reaction. Scares the f*ck out of me.
No matter who becomes President, we are screwed.
Ted Cruz, White House, maybe I over-react...
I believe your assessment to be accurate, although I'm hoping the GOP hasn't sunk that low... yet. :unsure:
That scares me about as much as Killary getting the nod.
Anyone who starts running this early is just a money and publicity grab. The viable candidates come later.
He could be running for VP, locking down the nutty right. Not someone I'd be comfortable with as a running mate if i were a middle right GOP candidate because I wouldn't want to get assassinated the first time I signed some normal bill.
Hillary is another deranged neo-con cut from the same cloth as Bush III Return of the Rich Guy. She's obviously unacceptable but for different reasons than Fox News promotes.
He isn't going to run, but I think Mark Warner would be a good choice. He was a good Virginia governor back in the day. If they didn't have term limits, he would have easily been reelected.
It was a different time back then, but I still think he would make a better president today than any of the other names being kicked around.
He doesn't have a big ego though. I feel like presidents have to have big egos. The trick is to balance that with some substance to back the big ego up.
Ted Cruz, White House, maybe I over-react...
Cruz's speech at Liberty University was saturated with:
"Imagine this"... "Imagine that"... "Imagine something else"...
But he left out one extremely important vision:
Imagine Ted Cruz as President :eek:
.
Ted Cruz is a walking, talking pile of smarm.
He isn't going to run, but I think Mark Warner would be a good choice. He was a good Virginia governor back in the day. If they didn't have term limits, he would have easily been reelected.
It was a different time back then, but I still think he would make a better president today than any of the other names being kicked around.
He doesn't have a big ego though. I feel like presidents have to have big egos. The trick is to balance that with some substance to back the big ego up.
Any politician who's been successful in Virginia would make me ask why, since it contains the richest and poorest counties in the nation.
Ted Cruz is a walking, talking pile of smarm.
My favorite story about him is that when he was at Harvard Law, he didn't want to study with students from the "
minor Ivies".
[QUOTE=Happy Monkey;924538]My favorite story about him is that when he was at Harvard Law, he didn't want to study with students from the "
minor Ivies".[/QUOTE
Dear heaven ... Justin Bieber AND Ted Cruz? I fold my Canadian flag.
Don't worry, he claims he was born in Canada, but I know people who know people who have solid evidence he was born in Kenya. :thumb:
I'm sure the birthers will be consistent on this one. ;)
I'm sure the birthers will be consistent on this one. ;)
I agree.
After all, Hillary was born and raised in Chicago,
and that's where Obama comes from too.
That can't be just a coincidence.
Srsly, I don't like any of the "potential candidates" right now at all. In a country of 300,000,000 the best we got is another Clinton and Bush? We R Suck.
The system as it is, is not a meritocracy - so no: they are not the best you have. They are just what you have.
w^Dana^s
So, follow Dr Phil's advice
... Figure out what each one has done in the past,
... Expect them to do the same in the future.
... Then decide which comes the closest to what you would want.
It does no good to just complain about not having the perfect candidate.
( This is why I have to be a dick ) :runaway:
Nobody would want to suffer the slings and arrows of higher office if it weren't for an overblown ego and /or an ulterior motive.
I disagree - 'nobody' is too absolute. There are and will always be a small number of people in political office, even at the higher echelons, who are true believers with a strong desire for civic service.
But they are, and always will be, outnumbered by those motivated by personal ambition, tribal or corporate influence, greed, and/or self-regard.
And both seem outnumbered by those who combine elements of the two.
I generally get more pissed about the stuff politicians get wrong than pleased with the things they get right. I suspect I'm not the only one. It isn't a great atmosphere to work in for normal people.
I disagree - 'nobody' is too absolute. There are and will always be a small number of people in political office, even at the higher echelons, who are true believers with a strong desire for civic service.
But they are, and always will be, outnumbered by those motivated by personal ambition, tribal or corporate influence, greed, and/or self-regard.
And both seem outnumbered by those who combine elements of the two.
:headshake Altruism doesn't make it past local politics over here.
Any office above that (county, state, national), are candidates who are [strike] bought & paid for [/strike] "guided".
BIG D AND THE KIDS TABLE LYRICS
"Try Out Your Voice"
I was talking to a young man at a party in these war days
And he asked me my thoughts
I talked about peace, fighting for the people,
he scowled then walked away
Told me my views are fucked
We screamed, we cried, the message has amplified
But they won't hear the people's voice
We scream, we cry, the message has amplified
But they won't hear the people's voice
Come on suits it's time to show us something
You know it's time for better days
Come on suits it's time to show us something
Just get your hearts out front, and prove you're something
Remember being proud, remember feeling loved,
remember when leaders gave sacrifice
I believe all men don't have a price
Truth in the state of the union address
Truth in this political process
I should not have to sing for this
We screamed, we cried, the message has amplified
But they won't hear the people's voice
We scream, we cry, the message has amplified
But they won't hear the people's voice
Come on suits it's time to show us something
You know it's time for better days
Come on suits it's time to show us something
Just get your hearts out front, and prove you're something
Try out your voice, now use it, now use it, we are the people
Try out your voice, now use it, now use it, we are the people
Try out your voice, now use it, now use it, we are the people
Try out your voice, try out your voice, just try out your voice
Now use it, now use it, we are the people
You THINK you have to be a dick because you THINK you are morally or ethically or some other bullshit better than or smarter than others. You are wrong.
You have to be for only one reason, because you are.
Refers back to post 20, glatt.
...You have to be for only one reason, because you are.
Yeah, and it's a hard life.
Srsly, I don't like any of the "potential candidates" right now at all. In a country of 300,000,000 the best we got is another Clinton and Bush? We R Suck.
You know what you are supposed to do in this situation, don't you?
Run. For election, or, away.
Ted Cruz, White House, maybe I over-react...
how about Ted Cruz on climate change and/or history?
I give you a reprint of an
Open Letter From Galileo to Ted Cruz.
[SIZE="2"]Late last night, Galileo’s skeletal hand (not the one that’s in a museum, the other one) reached out of a grave and gave me this letter. I reproduce it in full.[/SIZE]
Dear Ted, Dear Everyone,
Please stop dragging me into this. Please, please stop.
I spent most of the afternoon spinning vigorously in my grave. If someone had hooked me up to a generator, I could have powered a small village.
I spun because Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) told the Texas Tribune the following, as transcribed by Kate Sheppard of the Huffington Post:
On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don’t engage in reasoned debate. What do they do? They scream, ‘You’re a denier.’ They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.
Ted, your grasp of history is as secure as your grasp of science.
This is so wrong. This is more wrong than the geocentric model of the universe, the thing I actually spent my life debunking. (We knew Earth wasn’t flat, dang it. Columbus had already sailed!) What I battled wasn’t a ruling scientific theory, either. It was religious dogma. I am not saying that those are opposites, but mistaking one for the other is like mistaking you for someone with an understanding of climate science.
In fact, when you say “accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat” you mean “non-accepted non-scientific not-wisdom that had nothing to do with the flatness of the Earth.” Other than that, though, accurate.
If this shook hands with the literal truth of what happened, they would both vanish.
It is an honor just to be remembered. So few of us historical figures are. But how do I put this? What is an analogy that will penetrate?
It’s like saying “by opposing vaccinations, I am just following in the footsteps of a heretic called Edward Jenner, who as we all know invented the light bulb.” This is like invoking Elizabeth Cady Stanton to support Men’s Rights Activism, but crediting her with Prohibition. It’s like saying, “I am a Democrat, just like Ronald Reagan, who of course won the Civil War.” You might as well thank Tesla every time you perform dark magic.
Look, I’m the last person who wants to get dogmatic about science. If the facts stop supporting the theory, scientists will change the theory. That’s how it works. Heck, I even recanted when I was right.
And I don’t care what you believe about the climate. I mean, I’m dead already. I don’t care what you do with the place. Just don’t use my name to lend yourself credibility. Once being forced into a lot of inaccurate statements by people whose grasp on science was lacking is enough.
Eppur si muove,
Galileo Galilei
Confidential to JB, HRC, RP, MR, RS, SW, CC or even BC or NG or SP or MO’M: Please, please get into this soon so that I do not have to write to Ted Cruz every day.
An extremist Senator from NC wants legislation that removes washing hands laws for all food industry employees. He says they should have freedom from government regulation. An obvious characteristic of extremists (such as Ted Cruz). Freedom is more important than responsibility.
That law exists due to irresponsible adults (who think like children) who did not wash their hands. We know this problem still exists (ie Hepatitis C, Listeria, etc). But extremists (ie Ted Cruz) get elected by attacking responsible adults for requiring 'adults who are still children' to act in an adult manner.
These same extremists are now promoting laws called 'Freedom of Religion'. Another example of how extremists pervert words such as Freedom and Liberty. "Freedom of Religion" says anyone can impose their religious beliefs on anyone else. As even PA Senator Santorum did. So we threw the scumbag out.
But extremists love this Catholic who also advocates imposting Catholic Church doctrine into all American laws. To impose his religion on all others as ordered to by the previous Pope. Santorum is another extremist who endorses a now peverted expression "Freedom of Religion".
tw,
Should an atheist printer be legally obligated to print flyers for Christian fundamentalists (who proclaim in the text of the proposed flyer 'atheists will burn in hell!')?
If yes, why?
If no, why?
My answer is yes. Here's why. I don't believe "Christian fundamentalists" or "atheists" or any other religious tradition, are a protected class, and therefore don't deserve such kind or "protection against discrimination".
I think protected classes should be for aspects that aren't voluntary, like a religious tradition is voluntary. Being of a particular racial appearance, or gender, or age... those things aren't voluntary. Discrimination based on such unchangeable, unchosen aspects is unfair, though it happens anyhow. Anti-discrimination laws are a valid effort to ameliorate the damage from such discrimination.
Furthermore, creating a protected class for Christian fundamentalists, or atheists, or FSMers or whatever, goes against my understanding of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
V, It's much easier to decide.
If you have a business license to sell to the public... you sell to all of the public.
(Printers may have an out in refusing what is legally pornographic;
but that is a different issue, not legally dependent on who is the customer.)
V, It's much easier to decide.
If you have a business license to sell to the public... you sell to all of the public.
What if you own a law practice and your big IP client is Apple, and a small porn company that specializes in realistic simulated extremely brutal rape porn wants you to represent them in a copyright dispute? It's a case that has drawn a lot of media attention because the starlet claims it was a real rape, even though she signed a contract earlier consenting to it in detail. The case isn't about the alleged rape, it's about another website streaming the video of it and violating the copyright. Anyway, can the law firm turn down the job for the porn company so they don't lose squeaky clean Apple's $500M a year worth of business?
Seems to me: the issue is neatly dealt with if one drops the whole religious freedom angle and gets down to the root, which is 'property'.
A business is property, it's owned. The owner, I think, should use (or misuse) his or property as he or she sees fit.
If such use (or misuse) offends the market (customers, potential and actual) then the owner will be punished through loss of profit. If such use (or misuse) pleases the market, then the owner will be rewarded through improved profit.
Not seein' how a focus on religion (freedom or restrictions on) serves any purpose 'cept to muddy the waters.
What I'm sayin': the atheist should be able to refuse the job for whatever reason (or for no reason) he cobbles together. The print shop is his to use or misuse as he sees fit.
Now, if I were the printer, I'd print anything and everything that comes across the threshold of my shop (if the money is right).
Monday: lesbian (I love her vulva!) wedding invitations.
Tuesday: KKK Holy Rollin' (don't forgit yer chewin' tobbacee!) Revival flyers.
Wednesday: Pro-choice (kill them babies!) pamphlets.
Thursday: Anti-abortion (don't kill them babies!) pamphlets.
Friday: Obama is my Lord and Savior (I'll blow him!) bumper stickers.
Saturday: Obama is the Anti-Christ (I'll blow him up!) bumper stickers.
Sunday: whatever comes through the door (and can pay).
But my mercenary bent is 'my' bent...can't see any good comin' from forcing that print shop across the way to do the same (besides, his principled stand [or prejudice] against 'this or 'that' may mean more profit for me).
This only exception I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).
Again: the religion angle that both (all) sides run through the legal machinery just muddies the issue.
But: of course, that's the way the chess board is currently set for play (and why, in the end, not a one will be satisfied with the short- or long-term results).
"...can the law firm turn down the job for the porn company so they don't lose squeaky clean Apple's $500M a year worth of business?"
In my view (outlined above): yep.
What if you own a law practice and your big IP client is Apple,
and a small porn company that specializes in realistic simulated extremely brutal rape porn
wants you to represent them in a copyright dispute? <snip>
I'm not clear on your example... I'm assuming the following
Apple is your existing client.
The porn company is a prospective client.
The copyright issue is
not between Apple and the porn company ?
I don't know what sort of formal ethics the legal community has set for itself.
Likewise for physicians deciding who will be their patients.
But there is the concept that everyone
in need is entitled to an attorney and/or physician.
In your example, my first decision would be along the lines of
"Is there a conflict of interest or exposure of proprietary information" by representing the porno company.
If not, then a business license is to serve
all of the public.
I suspect these kinds of issues occur frequently...
but I do not see a "religious freedom" issue in this specific example.
That's all well and good if you're a mercenary. But what if you're a bigot? You didn't mention any situation in which you as the business owner should be compelled to do business with a particular customer despite the desire of the business to NOT deliver the product or service.
Seems to me: the issue is neatly dealt with if one drops the whole religious freedom angle and gets down to the root, which is 'property'.
A business is property, it's owned. The owner, I think, should use (or misuse) his or property as he or she sees fit. <snip>
Only if you are King on your own wholly-island could you make such an argument. (pun not intended)
And you'd lose that argument the first time you tried to buy something from another King.
But like it or not, our laws require a business license to sell to or service the public.
You may try to make the trivial argument that the government just wants to make $,
but license fees are not the
sine qua non of issuing a business license.
A license is a "statement" that each licensee agrees to abide by certain Laws, Rules, and Regulations.
And non-descrimination has become one of the laws of commerce in the U.S.
V,
As I say: Th(e) only exception I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).
So: if you're the only pharmacist in town, denying life-saving medicine cuz you object to the way it's produced (or, cuz you don't like the customer) is a no-no.
But: denying lesbians a wedding cake cuz you think gay marriage is immoral is a-ok (as would be refusing to do business with a, for example, Republican [if that’s the burr under your saddle]).
Again (repetition is good!): Th(e) only exception (and coherent objection) I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).
Lamp,
"And non-descrimination has become one of the laws of commerce in the U.S."
As is the religious freedom restoration act (federally and, increasingly, on the state level).
Bad law is bad law, yes?
#
"And you'd lose that argument the first time you tried to buy something from another King."
Nope. Covered that in my original post. The market (potential and actual customers) decides...let it (them).
I'm not clear on your example
The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people. But don't get hung up on Apple. Pretend the lucrative client is ChickFilA.
The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people.
... if these guys get into bed with pornographers ... (pun intended ?)
No, I don't think "it's just fine for a law firm..."
That's not to say I don't think it happens.
But, were the pornographers able to bring a discrimination suit against the law firm,
I believe and hope this law would have a hard time giving legal
arguments to defend their firm's actions based on PR or religious freedom.
The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people. But don't get hung up on Apple. Pretend the lucrative client is ChickFilA.
To me it comes down to a question of "type of business" vs. "type of customer."
In my ideal world, you can say "we don't do that type of business," as long as you are consistent in that. You can't say "we don't want business from
you personally" if you have performed that exact business with a different customer.
Or in the case of wedding cakes, you can say, "I don't put two brides or two grooms on top of my cakes," but you can't say "I won't bake you a cake identical to other cakes I have baked for other customers."
To me it comes down to a question of "type of business" vs. "type of customer."
<snip>
Or in the case of wedding cakes, you can say, "I don't put two brides or two grooms on top of my cakes,"
but you can't say "I won't bake you a cake identical to other cakes I have baked for other customers."
Clod, I do agree with your arguments , but then came your last example...
Had you said "We are a cake business. We don't do pies" = OK
But for wedding cake businesses, traditionally, their customer
s
want and have had a say in how their cakes are decorated.
So now it's back on shaky ground.
Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ?
What is the argument ?
The situation seems closer to the owner saying "No" to these specific customers ...
because of what the owner believes these customers are
going to do in the future ?
e.g, is the "religious freedom" issue that the customers are going to sin ?
or, who the customers appear to be in the eyes of the owner ?
How does that then differ from discrimination against any ethic group?
It seems (to me) the "wedding cake", "photographer", etc. situations are
only contrivances to divert attention away from "what" the business does....
It engages in commerce to serve the public.
So now it's back on shaky ground.
Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ?
What is the argument ?
The argument is that, in the land of discrimination, the two lesbian ladies could say, "Fine, stick a traditional topper on since that's all you carry, we'll take it off and put our own on after we leave," and the shop owner would still refuse to make the cake because the shop owner's problem is with the
people ordering the cake. You can't legislate the types of products and accessories the cake shop provides, just like you can't make the porn shop sell "gay" dildos, but you can make the porn shop sell a gay man a "straight" dildo just like he does for the straight people.
I don't know what sort of formal ethics the legal community has set for itself.
Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha :lol2:
Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ? What is the argument ?
Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?
Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha :lol2:
Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?
"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?
That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.
If your religious beliefs keep you from treating your customers equally,
don't get a business license to do commerce with the public.
( Some people don't believe in paying taxes ... Ask the IRS how that's working for them. )
BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.
"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?.
Of course the business owner objects, for Christ's sake, why the fuck would the customer object to their own request? You do realize it's the customer that makes the request for a cake, right?
That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.
OK, so you draw the line according to the customer's request? Or you can't refuse any request? If they can refuse, and don't give a reason, how do you claim it was because of religion or because the customer belongs to a group?
BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.
Bullshit, you're presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted, but if you did it, you're still guilty as a motherfucker.
BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.
Bullshit, you're presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted, ...
Look closer... we're saying the same thing.
No we are not. No matter how many Shapiros, Cochrans, Baileys, Dershowitzs, Kardashians, or Archies you can afford, if you did it you're fucking guilty.
No sir, it (business) does not.
You confuse means with ends.
The only purpose of a business (what 'it' does) is to make a profit for the owners of the business.
How does 'it' do this?
By selling products and/or services to folks who want those products or services (or who have been convinced [by way of marketing] they want those products or services).
Business is not about selflessness or altruism or 'service'...it -- again -- is about making money for the owners of the business.
Now, I understand why this ('a business engages in commerce to serve the public') is attractive to some folks (I'm entitled, I'm owed, I deserve, etc.) but it's a false notion, a pernicious lie, and you'd do well to disabuse yourself of it.
The only purpose of a business (what 'it' does) is to make a profit for the owners of the business.
.
Your basic premise is completely wrong. The purpose of communism is to enrich the Central Party. The purpose of the mafia is to enrich the godfather. The purpose in GM is to protect bonuses of top management. In every case, that is corruption.
The purpose of the electric company is to move electricity. The purpose of the water company is to move water. The purpose of banks is to move money. In every case, profit are only a reward - not the purpose.
When a company exists to enrich itself, then it is no different from the mafia. The mafia will break your legs if necessary to make a profit. Mafia does not care about destruction to the economy, peoples lives, and their long term survival. When profits become the purpose, then corrupt exists.
A company can either work for better products or for profits. Those that are patriotic Americans advance mankind by innovating - making better products. Those who have done so much harm (ie GM, AT&T, HP under Fironia, IBM under Akers, AIG, Ford under Henry Ford and Nasser, etc) were only interested in profits. GM is the perfect example. They even covered up the murder of Cobalt drivers for 14 years to only protect profits. Jeep explode for the same reason Pintos also burned their occupant alive. Because profits (not the product) was imporant.
The purpose of a law firm is to represent individuals. Lawyer are taught to defend people who they do not even agree with. The Civil Liberties Union defended Nazis (in Wisconsin?) because that is the purpose of that law firm. They need not agree with Nazis. But that is their job. That is what they said they will do. Defending clients you might hate is called professionalism.
Meanwhile, your religion is only between you and your god. It does not belong anywhere that it might be imposed on others. Once anyone does anything to others in the name of their religion, then their religion is Satanism. Religion is only a relationship between you and your god. It must never affect anyone else. America was founded (populated) by people who believed exactly that. By people who were fleeing from scumbags who would impose their religion on others.
Does not matter what your religion says. Patriotic American believe all people (no matter what their color, religion, sex, dimensions, etc) are equal. Only scumbag people like Hitler, Crusaders, ISIS, and Likud made judgments based in religion. Same people can also be brainwashed in the lie about what a company's purpose is.
"profit are only a reward - not the purpose."
The end is profit; the means is the selling of product or service.
The means serve the end.
#
"A company can either work for better products or for profits."
The only reason for a company to improve a product or service is to increase profit.
#
"The purpose of a law firm is to represent individuals"
No. Its purpose is to make money for the lawyers...these 'fine' men and women (lawyers) make money though the practice of 'law' (navigating systems of rules).
#
*"Only scumbag people like Hitler, Crusaders, ISIS, and Likud made judgments based in religion. Same people can also be brainwashed in the lie about what a company's purpose is."
HA!
If you believe any business exists for any reason other than profit, then you’re naive...and a nitwit.
Also: (for this*) I believe, tw, you can go fuck yourself...hard...deep...with a broom handle (no lube).
Please avoid [strike]threats[/strike] statements involving personal violence in this forum. Thanks
This thread is out of order! This whole court is out of order! :lol:
Can I facetiously threaten personal violence in another thread? Or rather, should I suggest someone personally violate themselves in a different thread? Should I start a "What personal violence would you like to facetiously tell someone to inflict upon themselves RFN?" thread or perhaps "What is making you facetiously suggest someone inflict personal violence to their personal private parts TODAY?" thread? ;)
Hop off! (Is that allowed, if, when hopping off, you are likely to break something?)*
*disclaimer: This statement is used for example only. It does not expressly imply my desire that you or any of your subsidiaries in any way, shape, or form, actually hop.
[COLOR="White"](here is where you ignore, dismiss, or otherwise discount me...with impunity.)[/COLOR]
HA!
Since when do you, toad, give a flip about such things?
*shrug*
As every one else here: I'll post what I like, as I like, when I like.
'nuff said.
*shrug*
As with any sort of weird ad hominem, it really doesn't advance your argument at all.
Which we could return to. I think what you've done here, in a wild tangent from the original point, is to confuse the [COLOR="Blue"]purpose of a Corporation[/COLOR] with the [COLOR="Red"]purpose of a business[/COLOR].
The [color="Blue"]purpose of a Corporation[/color] is is often written about and considered in business classes and economics and market philsophy. It's to serve the interests of the shareholders, which means to increase the value of their shares.
(Which is, roughly, the perceived value of investment in the corporation, in the marketplace of investments.)
(Note that a Corporation will often do that without making a profit; witness Amazon, whose value continues to increase year over year even while strategically not generating a profit.)
The [COLOR="Red"]purpose of a business[/COLOR] is much different; it's to serve the interest of the owner or owners. They will have wildly varying reasons why they want to operate a business. For many of them, strategically losing money is a reason to do so, either for tax purposes, or accounting purposes, market reasons ("That site in Elmwood is losing money but it's a pain in the ass for our competition the next town over"), family reasons ("The pretzel shop goes to our daughter-in-law. We expect she will fuck it up"), or personal reasons ("I'm not making any money with my Christian cake store, but it's a personally fulfilling mission.")
That's what you wanted to say in the first place. If [strike]increasing the price of the stock[/strike] making money is the only purpose of the business, denying a portion of the market is a terrible way to go about it. Identifying buyers and not alienating them is kind of critical. You'd only want to do that if some purpose of your business is not making money in certain ways. Which is perfectly fine.
"As with any sort of weird ad hominem, it really doesn't advance your argument at all."
As though the majority here give a flip about my 'argument'.
In any event: your concern over my advancing my 'argument' is touching.
#
"a wild tangent"
Which one? When, for example, tw moved the thread from 'let’s shit on Ted Cruz!' to 'I'm gonna rant about a (largely) irrelevant law!'?
That the "wild tangent" you're talkin' about it?
#
I'll say it again: the purpose of a business is to make a profit for the owner(s) of the business. Some -- like me -- are straightforward about it; others indulge in long-term strategies that cost them today in the hope of garnering that much more tomorrow.
Nuthin' you posted (as example) disputes me.
Also: only a crazy or stupid person sez 'I'm working this business or job to secure my kids (to feed them, shelter them, etc. ['I’m makin’ money for my family']) but making money takes a backseat to some ideal or abstract.
I'll concede that stupid or crazy people may start businesses to (as Lamp would say) 'serve the public' but such folks are the exception...certainly such folks are not the focus of my comments, my 'argument', in this thread.
Experiment time...
Who here owns his or her own business?
Why?
Who here has a job?
Why?
<snip>Experiment time...
Who here owns his or her own business? Me, dba Lamplighter Consultants
Why? ... as a (legal) vehicle for consulting for/with other businesses/entities.
Who here(had) a job? Me
Why? ... teaching and research
Now, Henry may try to turn that into $ and/or an exception
... Of course, $ is necessary in our society, but let me say $ is/was not the "Why"
If money is not the 'why' then why charge at all?
Consult for free...teach for free...research for free.
Or: consult, teach, research solely to break even (inflow balanced against outflow).
Did you, lamp, ever make a profit (a financial gain, the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something)?
If so: why? Did you keep it? Donate it? Return it?
Why did 'profit' become a dirty word?
Having this argument on the Internet does not make me money, so
Having this argument on the Internet is no longer interesting, so... I'm done.
Peace
Why did 'profit' become a dirty word?
Because the
Ferengi turned it into a quasi-religion.
Which we could return to. I think what you've done here, in a wild tangent from the original point, is to confuse the [COLOR="Blue"]purpose of a Corporation[/COLOR] with the [COLOR="Red"]purpose of a business[/COLOR].
The [color="Blue"]purpose of a Corporation[/color] is is often written about and considered in business classes and economics and market philsophy. It's to serve the interests of the shareholders, which means to increase the value of their shares.
(Which is, roughly, the perceived value of investment in the corporation, in the marketplace of investments.)
(Note that a Corporation will often do that without making a profit; witness Amazon, whose value continues to increase year over year even while strategically not generating a profit.)
The [COLOR="Red"]purpose of a business[/COLOR] is much different; it's to serve the interest of the owner or owners. They will have wildly varying reasons why they want to operate a business. For many of them, strategically losing money is a reason to do so, either for tax purposes, or accounting purposes, market reasons ("That site in Elmwood is losing money but it's a pain in the ass for our competition the next town over"), family reasons ("The pretzel shop goes to our daughter-in-law. We expect she will fuck it up"), or personal reasons ("I'm not making any money with my Christian cake store, but it's a personally fulfilling mission.")
That's what you wanted to say in the first place. If [strike]increasing the price of the stock[/strike] making money is the only purpose of the business, denying a portion of the market is a terrible way to go about it. Identifying buyers and not alienating them is kind of critical. You'd only want to do that if some purpose of your business is not making money in certain ways. Which is perfectly fine.
I like this. It bears reflecting on.
Just an add on: I work for one of those non-profit corporations which some people rail against. We have a clear mission which people are willing to support by working at lower rates of pay for. It
feels better than making more money in a less fulfilling gig. I may still be a lifestyle libertarian but it seems I'm pretty well converted to the social contract politically.
"Having this argument on the Internet does not make me money, so"
Me neither, but then arguing on the net is not my livelihood, so...
#
"Having this argument on the Internet is no longer interesting, so... I'm done."
As you like.
#
"the Ferengi turned it into a quasi-religion."
Big-eared buggers...they killed our Lord and Savior, UFO Space Alien Jeezus, you know.
#
"non-profit corporations"
Great things that fall outside of my position in this thread.
Why did 'profit' become a dirty word?
It never was. However its purpose has been subverted by what is taught in business schools where concepts also justify mafia style corruption.
Profits are a reward - not a purpose. For the same reason a gold metal in the Olympics is a reward - but not the purpose of that race.
If a company is not making a profit, then its products suck - do not advance mankind. Bankruptcy exists to destroy companies so corrupt as to not innovate.
If a company is making a profit, that does not mean its products are good. That only reports that a company *may* be making good products. Furthermore, good products only appear as a profit four to ten years after the fact. Another concept subverted by business schools that teach today's profits come from work done this year. Also called short term thinking or concepts that enrich top management at the expense of all other employees.
Shareholders expect a return on their investment. So responsible investors invest in something where an ROI is four to ten years after the fact. Because responsible and productive companies worry today about the product. And then reap a reward four to ten years later.
Profit is an indicator and a reward. But only if the reward is earned (ie by innovation) and not by scamming other (ie stock brokers).
For the most part, a company decides whether it makes a profit. The market decides whether it makes the kind of money needed to make a
profit. What companies are rewarded by is
revenues.
Amazon, for example, famously refuses to make a profit. They could make a profit at any time. Amazon takes all the money that might go into profits and puts it right back into the company, to develop new innovations, and new markets. As a result their gross revenues, i.e., sales, are geometrically increasing.
History will show that this was the correct model. Everyone declared for years and years that "Amazon is not
profitable therefore it is not a viable company!" Everyone was wrong. Some people are still saying this. They are wrong.
Amazon could have been profitable at any time in its history. But that would have ended its growth and terminated the ability for it to generate profits in the future. Instead it has gone from being a book store, to being an everything store, to being a major blue chip internet infrastructure company and a tremendous developer of new products. It took until 2009 for the financial market to realize this and reward it with higher stock prices. If you bought AMZN in the beginning of 2009 you would have seen it rise by a factor of ten by the end of 2013. Amazon has rewarded its stockholders by not being profitable.
~ I learned this by going to MBA school so maybe not all time spent there is a waste ~ Amazon, for example, famously refuses to make a profit. They could make a profit at any time. Amazon takes all the money that might go into profits and puts it right back into the company, to develop new innovations, and new markets. As a result their gross revenues, i.e., sales, are geometrically increasing.
Your example demonstrates that Amazon is making tremendous profits. But instead of claiming them in spread sheets, Amazon's profits are directed into something that only appears on spread sheets as a cost - investment and innovation. Innovations do not appear as profits until after that innovation is no longer innovative.
Never assume spread sheets report accurately. What an innovator does today means negative profits this and other years later. Ford is a perfect example. William Clay in 2000 wanted in all Fords an innovation developed in GM in 1972 (and still not in all GM cars today). Massive work done in and after 2000 meant Ford lost more money in 2007 then ever in Ford's history. So why did Ford have massive profits in 2010? Spread sheets only provide numbers that must be viewed with perspective.
Your Amazon example assumes monetary standards promoted in business schools are accurate. Business schools teach that activiities this year are reported on this year's spread sheets. That myth also explains why stock brokers are some of the worst investors on Wall Street. Actual value of any economic activity (ie a non-profit organization) is not always measured by myopic concepts taught in business schools. One is expected to appreciate that where reviewing this years financial reports.
Why was Enron so profitable when it was really scamming the economy?
Why did AT&T (when run by people who come from where the work gets done) finance a man to write computer chess programs? Why is that relevant to a telecom? Because spread sheets cannot measure value.
Because spread sheet (business school) concepts were ignored, the Bell Labs created the transistor, laser, fiber optics, structured programming language (ie C), communication satellites, discovered the Big Bang Theory, masers, PCM communication (that makes cell phones possible), Shannon's communication theory (math that makes all digital communication possible), computer speech (ie Siri), Unix (the basis of all other Operating systems). Most were developed more than 20 years before profits happened. These and so many others were some of the greatest accomplishments of those decades.
Because business school graduates make decisions from profit and loss sheets, then networking, WYSIWYG video displays, the graphical interface (ie Windows, mouse), structured programming, etc sat stifled in Xerox unless innovators stole the technology.
Due to profit and loss thinking, Chevrolet makes a hybrid where its engine cannot even recharge its battery. How dumb is that? Only smart when decisions are based in profits and cost controls rather than in value.
Profits are only a reward. Amazon simply directs their reward into new innovations rather than into a pile of cash. Only spread sheet myopia *knows* Amazon is unproductive. Spread sheets will not say profitable or unprofitable for generations.
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Profit'
Profit is the money a business makes after accounting for all the expenses. Regardless of whether the business is a couple of kids running a lemonade stand or a publicly traded multinational company, consistently earning profit is every company's goal.
The path toward profitability can be long. For example, online bookseller Amazon.com was founded in 1994 and did not produce its first annual profit until 2003. Many start ups and new businesses fail when the owners run out of capital to sustain the business.
... The only purpose of a business (what 'it' does) is to make a profit for the owners of the business. ...
This is correct. Revenues realized in excess of expenses and sustaining a business's status quo are profit. The purpose of a business is profit. The goals of those who reap the profit may be reinvestment into the business to grow, diversify, conduct R&D to create new marketable goods and services; or, doing pro bono charitable work, wielding influence ... etc. Businesses, rather than personal fortunes, may be established to achieve those goals; but, goals can change - the purpose of a business does not.
Some businesses may take longer than others make a profit. Positioning a business for sustainability may take more time than simply meeting expenses. That does not; however, mean that the purpose of the business isn't profit, just that it hasn't fulfilled its purpose yet. Even a subsidiary business operating in the red as a tax deduction for the parent organization exists for the purpose of overall profit just as business charitable contributions sometimes do.
Counterpoints suggesting that revenues beyond expenses aren't profit when they're reinvested into a business would have to demonstrate that those revenues were limited to just sustainment requirements and not growth. Then it would mean only that the business isn't profitable now, that its purpose isn't yet fulfilled. NPOs are beyond the scope of the initial contention and rebuttal as are definitions of "profit" derived from jargon relative to specific disciplines.
LLAP
The purpose of a business is profit.
So the purpose of non-profit businesses must be to subvert or harm an economy. Clearly Amazon is doing major damage to America.
Purposes of all businesses are similar. Each may be measured by different parameters. Only corrupt operations that exist only for profit (ie mafia) harm an economy and society. Selectively ignoring those other businesses is disingenuous. The purpose of all businesses is ....
Not seein' how havin' profit as the goal equates with damaging the economy.
Joe, for example, wants to make profit (money above and beyond what he invests in his business for development, production, marketing, etc.).
Joe decides he'll develop, produce, and market X.
If Joe is successful in offering sumthin' folks want (or, are convinced they want) then Joe stands to make a profit. But: if he offers sumthin' folks don't want then no profit for Joe.
Now, if folks want crap (or, can be convinced they want crap) then that's on them...after all: no one is obligated to buy jack from any one.
So: if the economy (nuthin' but transactions) tanks, blame the market (actual and potential customers), not the source of product and service.
Buyer (don't trust, don't settle): beware.
Again: the only purpose for business is to make a profit through the sale of products and services that folks want (or, have been convinced - by way of marketing - that they want).
Non-profits - again - by definition, fall outside of profit-making endeavors.
Nuthin' to be gained (by you) in muddyin' the waters of this discussion through equating 'for profit' with 'non-profit'.
There's only one meaningful measure to the owners of a business, that being how much profit is there (and [to continue making profit] are we liable to continue producing that which customers want [or, that we can convince them they want]?).
For profit: fishin' cuz you and your family gotta eat.
Non profit: fishin' for fun and throwin' your catch back.
The methods may be the same but the goals are not.
So the purpose of non-profit businesses must be to subvert or harm an economy. Clearly Amazon is doing major damage to America. ...
I don't see where anyone other than you is saying that, tw. Where you got that from I don't know; but, you've been known to put words into people's mouths just so you'll have something to dispute.
I've already posted that NPOs are outside the context of the original contention and rebuttal. You're terminology, "non-profit businesses," is a futile attempt to expand the context of initial statements beyond what was there; but, you've been known to do that just so you'll have something to dispute ...
Nonprofit organization
A nonprofit organization (NPO, also known as a non-business entity[1]) is an organization that uses its surplus revenues to further achieve its purpose or mission, rather than distributing its surplus income to the organization's directors (or equivalents) as profit or dividends.
... and you've been known manipulate definitions of words used by others just so you'll have something to dispute.
You're kinda like the Rush Limbaugh of the Cellar.
Bypassing the religious and dscrimination crap...
Unless a life is threatened (in a real, demonstrable, way) by way of denying service or products, the owner of a business should be free to turn away a customer for any damned reason that comes to mind (including, no reason at all).
If the market (actual and potential customers) find the owner's action distasteful then the owner is punished by way of a loss of profit.
Legal/government involvement is not required.
Unless a life is threatened (in a real, demonstrable, way) by way of denying service or products, the owner of a business should be free to turn away a customer for any damned reason that comes to mind (including, no reason at all).
You have justified denial of service to blacks at the Woolworth's counter. A company offers services to the public. That means no denial of service for color of skin, shape of a foot, color of eyes, size of fingers, disabilities, religion, etc. You have simply endorsed same wacko extremists logic promoted by the KKK.
Religion and racial discrimination is entirely about this concept. The minute you want to "bypass crap", then we know you want to ignore what is fundamental to America to justifiy a myopic opinion. All good men only impose their religion on themselves. And never on anyone else.
Another wacko extremists went to Florida to impose his religious beliefs on Terry Schiavo. Same thing by another corrupt religious pervert. Religion is only between you and your god. No one else. Not even your church has the right to impose their beliefs on your relationship. Even your church can only advise. It has no right to impose their beliefs on you.
Many so hate humanity (ie Netanyahu of Isreal) as to even use religious hate to get reelected. It works because so many adults are still children; would impose their religion, emotional biases, and hate on others. Businesses in a moral, ethical, honest, and American society have no right to impose their religous beliefs on anyone else.
Religion is only between you and your god. Nothing more.
If they want to deny service to anyone, then they have the right to deny service to all by not selling that product or service. They have the right to choose what they want to sell for legal and commercial reasons - to all or to none.
Once religion's beliefs are involved, well, my religion says it is good and I should hang them from the ceiling by their penis or clitoris. My religion openly advocates physcial harm to anyone who has pagon religious beliefs - such as Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Of course, being a patriotic American, I do not impose my religion (and my machette) on anyone else.
For profit: fishin' cuz you and your family gotta eat.
For profit: I take far more fish than my family needs. Non-profit: I take only what I need.
Businesses are profit and non-profit. To justify a business school lie, some must pretend one is a business and the other is not.
All businesses have one purpose - superior products/servcies that advance society. Any business without that purpoes (ie the mafia) is harmful to that society. Businesses that are productive (profit and non-profit and NPOs) accomplish same. In every case their 'profits' are measured by different metrics. But they are all businesses that exist for a common purpose.
Junk science reasoning conveniently ignores one example to justify a half truth or myth. And so some want to ignore non-profit business since it contradicts what they were original ordered to believe. Every business - profit or non-profit - is a business. All productive business have the same fundamental purpose - advancement of mankind. Those that do not advance mankind are 'fixed' by concepts such as bankruptcy. Or (ie mafia) by legal prosecution. We make laws so that only productive businesses survive.
Any business that discriminates based in their religion and hate violates principles that America was founded on. Early 20th Century racists also wanted to deny those basic American principles. Similar people are also described by other names such as ISIS and Likud.
I've justified denial of services and products to blacks, whites, the old, the young, republicans, democrats, libertarians, atheists, christians, jews, muslims, the single, marrieds, the fat, the thin, the beautiful, the ugly, men, women, gay, straight, and on and on and on.
*I've justified denial of services and products by anyone, to anyone, for any reason at all.
This not about religion; it's about property (ownership and use).
Life is not fair...get used to it.
*except if a life is threatened (in a real, demonstrable, way) by a denial of service or product...gave an example up-thread
"All businesses have one purpose - superior products/servcies that advance society."
No. Businesses sell products and services to make profit.
Innovation is all about increasing profit.
That society possibly advances is the happy (but uneccessary) byproduct of businesses competing with other businesses (through improvements to services and products), attempting to lay claim to as big a slice of the market as possible.
'New and improved' is always about makin' dough.
Your idealism insulates you from reality.
... Your idealism insulates you from reality.
A common etiology for whacko moderates trying to impose their beliefs on others.
"All businesses have one purpose - superior products/servcies that advance society."
No. Businesses sell products and services to make profit.
Companies that advocated that also proved why superior products do not exist - ie Scully and Spindler's Apple, Fiorina's HP, Aker's IBM, Ford's Ford and Nasser, GM's Smiths, Wagoner, et al, Chrysler's and Lowe's Nardelli, post 1975 Eastam Kodak management, post 70s Xerox management (George Pake later confesses this was true), Firestone, Microsoft's Balmer, First Energy's Alexander, Ashton-Tate (the world largest manufacturer of PC sofltware), Toyota's Wantanbe, etc. In every case, bad products resulted many years later. Then followed by falling profits.
These 'we want to make a profit' scumbags had to be removed. When replaced by someone who said the product is imporant, then the companies recovered. Otherwise those profit craving companies died.
Why does Chrysler make a Jeep that explodes like a Pinto - for the same reasons? It was designed by a company that desperately wanted profits; not better products. Why did Federal Pacific make circuit breakers that failed to trip? Profits.
History is rampant with example of what makes companies productive (products are important) and what causes corporate destruction (profits are important). William Edward Demings is hated by the business schools because he made this obvious.
All that can really be said about the examples you offer is: these are companies and individuals who lost sight of the essential fact, that being 'profit (long-lasting and rising) comes in direct proportion to the (real or perceived) quality of service or product'.
Any one can be short-sighted...such short-sightedness doesn't negate the central role of profit in business.
Any one can be short-sighted...such short-sightedness doesn't negate the central role of profit in business.
Two choices. Either the purpose is its product. Or the purpose is product. Which one? Both cannot exist. History is irrefutable. Companies driven for profits make crap products. Examples apply to almost every corporation - profit, non-profit, NGO, SOE, etc.
Denying that without even one reason is disingenuous. Your every denial is "What I was told is true. Therefore it must be true." No reason was provided to contradict a reality. Productive companies - those that advance mankind - worry about the product. Cited again and again are corrupt or unproductive operations that exist because profits - not the product - are important. They are not exceptions. Same examples exist almost everywhere.
Appreciate that what one is taught as a child is extremely difficult to unlearn. Is also why brainwashing works; is so effective. But reality is obvious. Either a company works to advance mankind; has better products; and therefore reaps profits. Or a company exists to enrich the Central Committee of the Communist party - top management. Exists only for profits. Then invents excuses when even profits dry up. You are hard pressed to list exceptions which explains no examples - only denials.
What I know of business comes from running one (not from a book or a school).
I self-employ ('am' the business)...my experience of the world 'as is' trumps (for me) your (in my view) isolating idealism.
But: have it your way, tw...let me know how it works out in your own business.
"Productive companies - those that advance mankind - worry about the product."
Of course they do!
I've said the same multiple times, in multiple ways, in this thread.
Why, do they worry about the product, tw?
Because, in selling a better, or superior, product, the wise business owner hopes to make MORE PROFIT.
If more profit were not possible, the owner would NOT improve the product or seek to offer quality.
Why the hell would he?
Because, in selling a better, or superior, product, the wise business owner hopes to make MORE PROFIT.
Not always true. Especially not true with NGOs and other non-profits. All (honest and needed) businesses have in common is what makes them productive. They must decide which one to address. Either better products or better profits. One cannot maximize both.
Productive companies that address their products can have a reward - profits. I keep posting this and you keep ignoring it. In part because it contradicts what business schools indoctrinate. Profit is only a reward. A reward can also exist in other forms. But one must decide to maximize profits (the reward) or the product. Most things done to maximize profits create inferior products. One cannot do both. As demonstrated in examples that were apparently too long; created glazed over eyes.
In every example, companies failed because they wanted to the profits. Innovation dies. Cost controls further destroy products to increase profits. Top management is replaced by profit experts who do not even know how to use the product. This happens when naive MBA types assume profits mean a better product must exist. You have absolutely no reason to assume that.
One must make a choice. Either maximize a product or maximize profits. Balmer so tried to maximize profits as to obviously harm Microsot's products. That is not an exception. It is a rule so reliable that you still fail to provide even one example ton contradict it.
Why do you never post an example? To make the point, you must keep ignoring what was posted. Understand the major difference between a 'purpose' and a 'reward'. Difference is major. It explains why companies that maximized profits end up with inferior products, adversarial employees, and threats of bankruptcy. Every failed company tried to maximize profits; therefore had to ignore the product. Concepts such as cost controls exist in dying companies maximizing profits while ignoring its products. The want the reward without earning it.
"I keep posting this and you keep ignoring it."
No sir...in my own way: I've addressed all your points...that you don't like (or, understand) what I'm posting is not my concern.
You are right about this, though: "I keep posting". Yes, you do...the same things over and over and over, just as I keep posting the same things over and over and over.
I've convinced you of nuthin'; you've convinced me of nuthin' and 'round and 'round we go.
When I was young: merry go 'rounds were fun; as an older man: not so much.
So: as I say, tw, 'have it your way' (that is, believe as you like, as will I).
This is one of the potential contenders (at some point) for leadership of the Conservatives over here - there are a lot of the party who'd like him at the top and the media touts him every so often as a rival to Cameron (partly becaue of the relationship between the London Mayoralty and Parliament) the interview is from 2012. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London:
[YOUTUBE]gZdY-qJRMG0[/YOUTUBE]
More recently, on ISIS and the British Jihadi:
[youtube]ntKIvTDERG4[/youtube]
For those who haven't seen him beyond the odd speech - here's the current PM and leader of the Conservatives on Letterman:
[YOUTUBE]Z0wWriPToSQ[/YOUTUBE]
[QUOTE=henry quirk;925477No sir...in my own way: I've addressed all your points...that you don't like (or, understand) what I'm posting is not my concern.[/QUOTE] Sir. You clearly have not. Because you cannot. To have addressed each point means reasons why (not rhetoric). And you provided examples. You did neither because you cannot.
You said the purpose of a business is profits because profits are the purpose of a business. That is classic Tea Party reasoning - also called rhetoric. When challenged to post examples, you posted none. Not even one. Otherwise the fallacies in that rhetoric are exposed. Your reasoning is disingenuous. But classic of how radical and extremist opinions are defended.
Purpose of a business is either its profits or its products. Which one? Difference between purpose and reward is fundamental. You ignore both to remain entrenched in rhetoric. Same logic also proved increased health by smoking cigarettes. A naive consumer automatically believes only what he is told. And then becomes entrenched when reality and logic expose the myth. You even ignore businesses such as NGOs, SOE, and non-profits. Otherwise you might learn how easily you were deceived by sound byte rhetoric.
No way around exceptions that you ignore. Now way around the examples you cannot provide. No way around disingenuous reasoning that Limbaugh also uses to defect glaring contradictions.
Purpose of a productive business is its products. That will not change no matter how many times rhetoric says otherwise and its examples are ignored. Product (not profits) made America (and other free market nations) great. Profits are simply one example of the reward - and not the purpose of all businesses. When the purpose of a business is profits, then words such as racketeering and mafia apply. More examples that expose fallacies in your rhetoric. Since the purpose of businesses (that are not corrupt) has always been their product.
What they contribute to the advancement of mankind.
For those who haven't seen him beyond the odd speech
So these guys hype 'let's get out of the EU'. When push comes to shove, do they really mean it? Or is this classic rhetoric that politicians use to inspired their followers - and that they do not really want or believe? What do you think? Are they really serious?
As I say, tw: 'have it your way'.
'nuff said.
So these guys hype 'let's get out of the EU'. When push comes to shove, do they really mean it? Or is this classic rhetoric that politicians use to inspired their followers - and that they do not really want or believe? What do you think? Are they really serious?
Some of them are - the Conservative Party is divided on the issue - some of them want out, others want to stay in but with renegotiated terms. Most of the serious leading figures in the party want to stay in, but there's a lot of pressure for them to promise an 'in/out' referendum.
It's a funny issue Europe - most of the main parties are divided on it, but for different reasons (the right of the Tories want out for reasons of national soveriegnty, whilst the left of Labour wants out because the dream of Europe has turned into a wet dream for business and we've basically already opted out of the worker protection aspects of Europe). One of the big issues is immigration and the free movement of citizens within Europe - so, when the new states joined their people suddenly had the right to move freely and work in any ocuntry in Europe etc - this led to an influx of people from Eastern Europe coming to the UK and that's upset a lot of people.
The right to control our own borders is a big issue for the anti-Europe side.
Whether they're serious? Don't know really. Some of them very much are - this has been a divisive issue within the Conservatives in particular, for decades. It was their internal divisions over Europe that pretty much killed them in '97.
For many of them though it is a rallying call - for someone like Cameron it is an albatross - on the one hand the needs of business and the economy clearly warrant a relationship with Europe - but he has to play a eurosceptic note if he wants to keep his troops onside.
The right wing fringe parties (like UKIP) have made much of the Conservatives' unwillingness to 'stand up for Britain' and free us from the European project - as they're the party most likely to draw away Tory support, there's a lot of pressure for the Conservatives to take a harder stance.
I've over simplified the issue - it's divisive and you'll find anti-european union attitudes amongst the left and right, for different reasons - and the fringe parties, on both left and right, often take a much harsher stance. With the main parties so close together (no one party won enough seats to form a credible government alone) those fringe parties are more of a threat to them than ever before. There is always a tug of war within parties and between parties over this issue.
I've over simplified the issue - it's divisive and you'll find anti-european union attitudes amongst the left and right, for different reasons - and the fringe parties, on both left and right, often take a much harsher stance. With the main parties so close together (no one party won enough seats to form a credible government alone) those fringe parties are more of a threat to them than ever before.
Will this undermine the Conservatives coalition? British elections happen quickly. Can we expect the Queen to learn that Parliament has been dissolved? Details that might predict that event are difficult to grasp at this distance. Or has this already started?
<snip>
The situation seems closer to the owner saying "No" to these specific customers ...
because of what the owner believes these customers are going to do in the future ?
e.g, is the "religious freedom" issue that the customers are going to sin ?
or, who the customers appear to be in the eyes of the owner ?
How does that then differ from discrimination against any ethic group?
...It engages in commerce to serve the public.
Oregon law seems to agree...
Same-sex couple in Sweet Cakes controversy should receive $135,000, hearings officer says
George Rede -
The Oregonian/OregonLive - 4/24/15
The lesbian couple turned away by a Gresham bakery that refused to make them a wedding cake
for religious reasons should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering,
a state hearings officer says.
Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman -- $150,000 total -- during a hearing on damages in March.
...
The amounts recommended by law judge Alan McCullough, coming after four days of testimony, are not final.
State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian has the final authority to raise, lower or leave the proposed damages as is.
In a statement Friday, BOLI* said: "The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that
the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the Complainants.
Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation,
just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.
Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007."
[BOLI - Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries]